Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. A. Benjaminson

:{{la|M. A. Benjaminson}} – (View AfD)(View log)

nn bio Hyeee3 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Insufficient nomination; he looks plenty notable to me even by the old WP:ACADEMIC standards. What d'you want, a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize? --Gwern (contribs) 16:25 7 November 2007 (GMT)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. It's not a great nomination, but where's the notability? He's a professor, chairman, and minor jobs that professors get pulled into, at a relatively minor university. He's wrote 45 papers in as many years, but are any of them really important? He's a director of a division of a company that's so small the only page that references it in Wikipedia is his (unless Zymotech is misspelled.) He's got NASA grants, as have a huge number of other scientists. He's at or just above the average professor level, IMO, which doesn't pass WP:PROF. I can see places where if the article was expanded; in particular, I read his "in vitro edible muscle protein production system" as just run of the mill research, but if other researchers were building off of it or NASA was actually going to put it into use, then that would be different.--Prosfilaes 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: After a quick googling, he's the president of Zymotech, which does business as North Star Research, a division of Zymotech. It looks like Zymotech is basically one-man show; Benjaminson is the contact address, there's no webpage, but there's a history of grants from NASA. center.spoke.com gives Newell Whitcomb the job of president of NSR. In any case, I don't think it changes his notability.--Prosfilaes 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After removing the MS and PhD thesis, the grant applications & reports disguised as papers, the ones where he was listed only as "technical assistance", and so on, there are 18 papers, almost none of which are in significant journals and none of which seem substantial--almost all are methods papers, which is biology are not usually very creative. Touro, as Prosfilaes says, is not a major university. Unless very high citations can be demonstrated--and I would really doubt it -- he is not notable. DGG (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to disagree on the methods comment. We shouldn't be disfavoring methods papers, per se. Some biologists are simply very well known for developing technologies -- and have even gotten the Nobel for it. --lquilter 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Influential methods papers get cited, lots, Benjaminson's on the other hand... Pete.Hurd 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. FWIW, ISI WOS lists 28 cited publications, citation counts: 1(15 pubs), 2(7 pubs), and 1 each cited 3, 4, 7, 10, 14 & 15 times. h-index==4. Pete.Hurd 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.